( 51 ) THE next question which was pressed by the counsel for the petitioners with great emphasis was that the agenda being restricted to the matters mentioned therein and the question of resignation of the President was not included in the agenda, it was not open to the Council to consider that resignation. Reliance was placed on an ancient judgment of House of Lords in William Smyth v. Henry G Farran Barley (2 H. L. C. 789-9 English Reports 1293 ). (6) This case of 1849 had the approval of the Privy Council in Radha Kishan Jaikishan and others v. Municipal Committee. Khandwa (AIR 1934 P C 627 (7) where the following observations of Lord Campbell were specifically mentioned:__"the election being by a definite body on a day of which, till summons, the electors had no notice, they were all entitled to be specially summoned, and, if there was any omission to summon any one of them, unless they all happened to be present er unless those not summoned were beyond summoning distance- as, for instance, abroad-there could not be a good elect- oral assembly: and even a unanimous election by those who did attend would be void. "

( 52 ) THESE observations no doubt related to elections and it was also stated that this general rule was modified in particular cases as, for instance, by authorising as sufficient notice the posting of a written notice to the usual address of the member. But the rule was applied in cases other than elections. In Vice-Chancellor, Utkal University and others v. S. K. Gilosh and others (AIR 1954 SC 217) (8) where their Lordships of the Supreme Court REFERRED TO to the Privy Council decision in Radha Kishan Jaikishan's case it was observed :-"the reason for the stricter rule laid down in the cases cited before us is that though an incorporated body like an University is a legal entity it has neither a living Mind nor voice. It can only express its will in a formal way by a formal resolution and so can only act in its corporate capacity by resolutions properly considered, carried and duly recorded in the manner laid down by its constitution. If its rules require such resolutions to be moved and passed in a meeting called for the purpose, then every member of the body entitled to take part in the meeting must be given notice so that he can attend and express his views. Individual assents given separately can not be regarded as equivalent to the assent of a meeting because the incorporated body is different from the persons of which it is composed. Hence an omission to give proper notice even to a single member in these circumstances, would invalidate the meeting and that in turn would invalidate resolutions which purport to have been passed at it. But this is only when such inflexible rigidity is imposed by the incorporating constitution ;

( 53 ) THE case of Young v. Ladies' Imperial Club (1920-2 K. B. 523 (9) was the other case REFERRED TO to by the Counsel for the petitioners. This case appears to have had the approval of the Supreme Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor Utkal University and others (8) mentioned above and has therefore been strongly relied upon by the counsel for the petitioners. The notice convening the meeting of the committee in that case stated that the object of the meeting was " to report on and discuss the matter concerning the plaintiff and Mrs. L". This notice was sent to each member of the committee except one, who had previously intimated to the Chairman that she would be unable to atttend the meeting of the Committee. In an action for declaration that the plaintiff was still a member of the Club it was held by the Court of Appeal in England that the omission to summon the absentee member of the commiittee invalidated the proceedings of that body and that the notice did not state the object of the meeting with sufficient particularity. On both these grounds the plaintiff was entitled to succeed.

( 54 ) THE argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners was that it was admitted by the respo

Click Here to Read the rest of this document